DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2006-183 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
   

FINAL DECISION 

 
AUTHOR: Ulmer, D. 
 
 
This proceeding was conducted according to the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and 
section 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed the case on September 29, 
2006, upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application and military records. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  May  31,  2007,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST 

 

 
 

 

 
 
 The applicant asked the Board to upgrade his RE-4 (not eligible to reenlist) reenlistment 
code so that he can join the Army and go to Iraq and serve his country.   The military record 
indicates that the applicant enlisted in the active duty Coast Guard on January 12, 1987. He was 
honorably discharged on November 30, 1987, by reason of unsuitability, with a JMB (personality 
disorder) separation code and an RE-4 reenlistment code.  
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant stated that his father forced him to join the Coast Guard at age 17.   He 

 
 
further stated as follows: 
 

I  was  a  stupid  kid  and  I  just  wanted  out.    Finally  my  superiors  offered  me  an 
honorable discharge.  I let them know in writing . . .  that I planned to serve in the 
future.  They tricked me by giving me a reenlistment code of 4 even though they 
led me to believe I could join another branch at a later date because I received an 
honorable discharge.  I need this injustice corrected so I can join the Army and go 
to Iraq and serve my country.   

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD 

The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on January 12, 1987.    On March 13, 1987, the 

 
 
applicant completed recruit training and reported to his first duty station.   
 

The applicant stated that he did not discover the alleged error until September 11, 2001.  
He stated that after September 11, 2001, he attempted to join the Army but was told that it was 
impossible  for  him  to  join  with  the  RE-4  reenlistment  code.      He  stated  that  he  just  recently 
discovered the BCMR on line.   
 

On  May  21,  1987,  the  applicant  received  an  administrative  remarks  (page  7)  entry 
counseling him about under age drinking and being intoxicated aboard the cutter.  The page 7 
documented the event as the applicant’s first alcohol incident. 
 
On  July  7,  1987,  the  applicant  was  awarded  non-judicial  punishment  for  being  absent 
 
without leave from June 25, 1987 through June 30, 1987.  He was punished with fourteen days 
extra duty.   
 
 
In  July  1987,  the  applicant  was  referred  for  a  medical  evaluation  by  his  command 
because of his apparent difficulty in adjusting to his job-related responsibilities and to following 
orders.  On August 10, 1987, he was diagnosed with alcohol abuse and with having an atypical 
personality disorder.   
 
 
On August 24, 1987, the applicant was referred to the medical department after reporting 
to the ship the previous evening, August 23, 1987, intoxicated and complaining that he had been 
hit  on  the  back  of  the  head  with  a  pool  cue  in  a  bar.    The  medical  note  also  stated  that  the 
applicant had been sniffing isobutyl nitrate (Rush).   The applicant was diagnosed with a mixed 
personality disorder and alcoholism.   The note further indicated a referral to a Naval Alcohol 
program. 
 
 
On September 1, 1987, the commanding officer (CO) informed the applicant that the CO 
was recommending that the applicant be discharged from the Coast Guard for the convenience of 
the government with an honorable discharge.    The CO informed the applicant that his mixed 
personality  disorder  was  the  basis  for  his  recommendation  for  discharge.    The  applicant  was 
advised of his opportunity to make a statement. 
 
On September 17, 1987, the applicant received a page 7 documenting the incident that 
 
occurred on August 23, 1987 as his second alcohol incident.    The page 7 also noted that he 
possessed isobutyl nitrate (rush).   
 
 
 
discharge.  He stated the following: 
 

On September 11, 1987, the applicant submitted a statement in response to the proposed 

I hold no animosity or dislike towards the Coast Guard.  The problems I have had 
adjusting were caused by problems in my personal life.  I’ve learned a great deal 

in the short time that I’ve been in [the Coast Guard] and would like to express my 
appreciation. 
 
One of the biggest problems I’ve had is my inability to cope with the stress placed 
upon  me  by  the  Coast  Guard.    I  feel  my  age  and  my  personal  problems 
contributed to this factor.  I know it is in my, as well as the Coast Guard’s best 
interest to discharge me.  At this time I am unable to serve.  However, after I am 
discharged, I plan to work out my personal problems, and in the future, possibly 
serve again after the problems are worked out.   

 
 
On  September  22,  1987,  the  CO  recommended  that  the  Commandant  honorably 
discharge the applicant by reason of unsuitability due to an atypical personality disorder.  The 
CO also noted the applicant’s non-judicial punishment and two alcohol incidents.     
 
On  October  14,  1987,  the  CO  notified  the  applicant  that  the  September  1,  1987, 
 
notification of proposed discharge was in error.  He further informed the applicant that he had 
amended  his  recommendation  to  request  the  applicant’s  discharge  by  reason  of  unsuitability 
related to a mixed personality disorder rather than a discharge by reason of convenience of the 
government.   
 
 
On October 19, 1987, the applicant wrote that he did not object to the discharge from the 
Coast Guard.  He further stated that he understood that the discharge had been initiated by reason 
of unsuitability related to his personality disorder.  He stated that his letter of September 11, 1987 
remained in effect.   
 
 
 

The applicant was discharged on November 30, 1987. 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 12, 2007, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted 
an advisory opinion recommending that the Board deny relief to the applicant.   The JAG asked 
that  the  Board  accept  the  comments  from  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel  Command 
(CGPC) as the advisory opinion. 
 
 
CGPC noted that the application was not timely and that the applicant had not provided 
any justification for not filing his application sooner.  With respect to the merits, the applicant 
stated the following:   
 

A  review  of  the  applicant’s  record  does  not  reveal  any  error  or  injustices  with 
regards to processing of his discharge and assignment of the RE-4 reenlistment 
code.  The applicant was discharged for unsuitability due to personality disorder.  
The  applicant  does  not  object  to  the  nature  or  character  of  his  discharge.   The 
applicant was afforded due process and made a statement in his behalf.   
 
The  assignment  of  Reenlistment  Code  of  RE-4  is  consistent  with  Coast  Guard 
policy . . . for unsuitability discharges.  The applicant was not suitable for military 

service based upon his personality disorder.   Additionally, a complete review of 
the  Applicant’s  record  indicates  in  the  10  moths  of  service,  the  applicant  was 
involved in two separate alcohol incidents and abused drugs.  The Coast Guard’s 
processing of the applicant for an unsuitability discharge for personality disorder 
was  far  more  favorable  than  processing  the  applicant  for  drug  or  alcohol 
administrative or disciplinary processing.  Had the applicant been processed for 
either of these other conditions, the most favorable reenlistment code he would 
have received would have been RE-4.   
 
The  applicant  asked  for  relief  based  upon  a  presumption  that  he  was  lead  to 
believe that with an honorable discharge he would be allowed to serve again.  The 
applicant contends that he was tricked with the assignment of the RE-4 code and 
that he was led to believe he could join another branch of the service at a later 
date. 
  Regardless  of  the  applicant’s  understanding  of  the  administrative 
assignment  of  the  Re-code,  the  administrative  discharge  for  unsuitability  was 
properly processed and the only suitable reenlistment code was assigned.   
 
There  is  no  error  or  injustice  in  the  assignment  of  the  applicant’s  reenlistment 
code of RE-4 or the processing of his administrative discharge.   

 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On  January  17,  2007,  the  BCMR  sent  the  applicant  a  copy  of  the  views  of  the  Coast 

 
 
Guard and invited him to respond.  The Board did not receive a reply. 
 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
Personnel Manual (COMDTINST M1000.6) 
 

disorders as listed in the Medical Manual. 
   
Medical Manual (COMDTINST M6000.1B)  
 

Article  12-B-16  provides  for  discharge  by  reason  of  unsuitability  due  to  personality 

Chapter  5.B.2.  lists  the  following  as  personality  disorders:    Paranoid,  Schizoid, 
Schizotypal,  Obsessive  Compulsive,  Histrionic,  Dependent,  Antisocial,  Narcissistic,  Avoidant, 
Borderline, Passive-aggressive, and Personality disorder NOS. 
 
Commandant  Instruction  (COMDTINST)  M1900.4B  (Instruction  for  the  Preparation  and 
Distribution of the Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214 
 
Chapter 2 (Separation Program Designators) of COMDTINST M1900.4B authorized and 
 
RE-4 reenlistment code with the JMB separation code.  This provisions states that a RE-3G may 
be assigned only when authorized by the Commandant.   

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

 
 
military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, and applicable law: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 

1. 

10 of the United States Code.   

 
 
2.    The  application  was  not  timely.    To  be  timely,  an  application  for  correction  of  a 
military  record  must  be  submitted  within  three  years  after  the  applicant  discovered  or  should 
have  discovered  the  alleged  error  or  injustice.    See  33  CFR  52.22.      This  application  was 
submitted approximately nineteen years beyond the statute of limitations.   The applicant claimed 
that he did not discover the alleged error until September 11, 2001, when he tried to join the 
Army.  He stated that until then he thought because he had an honorable discharge he could still 
join  a  branch  of  the  armed  forces.    However,  the  applicant  knew  in  1987  that  he  was  being 
discharged by reason of unsuitability due to a personality disorder.   In  addition, his DD form 
214, which he signed, contains the RE-4 reenlistment code.  Therefore, the applicant knew or 
should have known of the alleged error at the time of his discharge from the Coast Guard.   
 

3.      Although  the  applicant’s  explanation  for  not  filing  his  applicant  sooner  is  not 
persuasive,  the  Board  may  still  consider  the  application  on  the  merits,  if  it  finds  it  is  in  the 
interest of justice to do so.  In Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 (D.D.C. 1992), the court 
stated  that  in  assessing  whether  the  interest  of  justice  supports  a  waiver  of  the  statute  of 
limitations, the Board "should analyze both the reasons for the delay and the potential merits of 
the claim based on a cursory review."  The court further stated that "the longer the delay has 
been and the weaker the reasons are for the delay, the more compelling the merits would need to 
be to justify a full review."  Id. at 164, 165. 

 
4.  Based on a cursory review of the merits, the Board finds that the applicant is not likely 
to prevail on his claim.   In this regard, the Board notes that the applicant was advised of the 
reason  for his discharge and provided the opportunity to make  a statement as required by the 
personnel  Manual.      In  his  statement,  the  applicant  wrote  that  his  discharge  was  in  the  best 
interest  of  the  Coast  Guard  and  himself.    He  acknowledged  that  he  was  being  discharge  by 
reason of a personality disorder.  The applicant also indicated that after resolving his personal 
problems, he may possibly want to serve in the future.  However, the applicant’s statement in 
this regard was not binding on the Commandant, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that 
the Coast Guard led the applicant to believe that he could reenlist at a future time.     

 
5.    In  addition,  the  assignment  of  the  RE-4  reenlistment  code  for  the  applicant’s 
unsuitability  personality  disorder  discharge  was  appropriate  and 
in  accordance  with 
COMDTINST M1900.4B. 1  Further, the RE-4 reenlistment code is supported by the applicant’s 
two alcohol incidents and NJP. 
                                                 
1   It appears from the record that that the applicant’s personality disorder was diagnosed by a physician’s assistant, 
rather than a psychiatrist.  Article 12-B-16 of the Personnel Manual (1982) states:  “When psychiatric considerations 
are  involved,  the  medical  officer  should  be  a  psychiatrist,  when  available.”    Neither  the  applicant  nor  the  Coast 

6.  Therefore the Board finds that due to the length of the delay, the lack of a persuasive 
for not filing his application sooner, and the lack of probable success on the merits of his claim, 
it is not in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations in this case.  The application 
should be denied because it is untimely and because it lacks merit.   

 

 
 
 

 
7. 

Accordingly, the applicant’s request should be denied.  

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

                                                                                                                                                             
Guard raised and/or addressed this issue.  Although the Board renders no decision with regard to this issue, it notes, 
however, that nineteen years have elapsed since the applicant’s personality disorder diagnosis and proof of whether 
a psychiatrist was available at the time is probably non-existent.  
 

The  application  of  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his  military 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

  

 
 Patrick B. Kernan 

 

 

 
 Donald A. Pedersen 

 

 

 
 Kenneth Walton 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 

record is denied.